The Official SBR-B Brawl Tier List v3.0

[Melomaniacal]

This is how I view it.

Although I see 80:20 as impossible on a competitive scale.

I just kinda tossed some names out, but yeah, I can agree.

At the metagame, 80:20 is essentially impossible, unless of course there's some ******** mistakes.

 

[mountain_tiger]

Realistically, at the top level, any match 30:70 or worse is basically unwinnable for the person on the receiving end. I mean, think about it this way. DK vs DDD is listed as 10:90. But do top DKs win 10% of matches against top DDDs? No, he doesn't.

 

[Tien2500]

ZSS just did the ICs on the boards, go read what they had to say. We argued over it a lot, though.

There needs to be an index or something in the matchup thread. Finding the right part of it was a pain. Based on what I read there I'm not convinced that its 60:40 ZSS on a neutral stage. 50:50 seems better. Unfortunately I've never played a really good ICs in person so all I have to go on is the thread .

 

[adumbrodeus]

I thought they couldn't double PS.

Generally they couldn't, but plasma whip's hitbox is weird, there's a considerable delay between when the hitbox appears in different locations.

Realistically, at the top level, any match 30:70 or worse is basically unwinnable for the person on the receiving end. I mean, think about it this way. DK vs DDD is listed as 10:90. But do top DKs win 10% of matches against top DDDs? No, he doesn't.

Exactly, even soft counters start approaching stupidly high percentages way too quickly for match-up ratios to really be useful. 60-40 with two people exactly even on skill and at the top of the metagame is gonna have an 80% victory ratio for the winner or more.

when you get to 70-30, it starts getting into the 99.9 area, and your "100-0s" are gonna hit 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... (not infinite, but too long for page) in terms of percents.


That's why using it as a percent is useless, it just doesn't happen that way.

 

[adumbrodeus]

double post...

 

[da K.I.D.]

Realistically, at the top level, any match 30:70 or worse is basically unwinnable for the person on the receiving end. I mean, think about it this way. DK vs DDD is listed as 10:90. But do top DKs win 10% of matches against top DDDs? No, he doesn't.

This is why the ratio system needs to be changed. because having this kind of generality in the mindset when one is trying to discern concrete numbers is rediculous.

If this is the case that the ratio system does need to be changed so that a 60:40 really means just that, a match where one character wins 60% of the time and the other wins 40%. If thats NOT what these numbers mean and we are going on a subjective reasoning that, "60:40 means its kinda hard and one character has a definite advantage and should be kinda, a little bit hard for the other character to win" than the entire concept of using numbers to determine matchups is completely meaningless, because the numbers dont actually translate, into anything...

If a DK can really only hope to win 1-2 games out of 100 with a competant DDD, than the ratio should reflect that, and be shown as a 99-1/98-2 matchup

 

[Nidtendofreak]

If a DK can really only hope to win 1-2 games out of 100 with a competant DDD, than the ratio should reflect that, and be shown as a 99-1/98-2 matchup

You think the number arguments are bad now?

You crazy!

 

[CaliburChamp]

S Tier (Super Tier) In the heavens.
Meta Knight 9.9
Snake 9.9

A Tier (Top Tier) On top of the mountain.
Wario 9.7
Falco 9.6
Diddy Kong 9.5
King Dedede 9.4
Marth 9.3
Pikachu 9.2
Ice Climbers 9.1
Mr. Game & Watch 9.0

B Tier (High Tier) Almost at the top of the mountain.
Olimar and Pikmin 8.7
Zero Suit Samus 8.5
Toon Link 8.3
Pit 8.2
ROB 8.1
Lucario 8.0

C Tier (Middle-High Tier) Half way there.
Kirby 7.9
Donkey Kong 7.7
Luigi 7.6
Squirtle 7.5
Fox 7.4
Wolf 7.2
Peach 7.1
Zelda/Shiek (Used as both) 7.0

D (Middle-Low Tier) Half way there.
Shiek 6.8
Ness 6.7
Lucas 6.6
Sonic 6.4
Bowser 6.3
Charizard 6.2
Pokemon Trainer 6.2 (as an average)
Zelda 6.0

E Tier (Low Tier) At the low part of the mountain.
Yoshi 5.8
Ike 5.6
Mario 5.4
Samus 5.2
Ivysaur 5.0

F Tier (Bottom Tier) On ground level.
Jigglypuff 4.9
Captain Falcon 4.8
Link 4.6
Ganondorf 4.4
Popo 4.0
Nana 4.0

D-F tiers should be used in low tier tounaments.

 

[Deoxys]

This is why the ratio system needs to be changed. because having this kind of generality in the mindset when one is trying to discern concrete numbers is rediculous.

If this is the case that the ratio system does need to be changed so that a 60:40 really means just that, a match where one character wins 60% of the time and the other wins 40%. If thats NOT what these numbers mean and we are going on a subjective reasoning that, "60:40 means its kinda hard and one character has a definite advantage and should be kinda, a little bit hard for the other character to win" than the entire concept of using numbers to determine matchups is completely meaningless, because the numbers dont actually translate, into anything...

If a DK can really only hope to win 1-2 games out of 100 with a competant DDD, than the ratio should reflect that, and be shown as a 99-1/98-2 matchup

THIS^^^^ It's so ******** if 60/40 now means 80/20. A 20/80 is NOT nearly unwinnable, as you win 1 out of every 5 sets by definition.

Although, I think what you meant to say in the last paragraph is 1-2 SETS out of 100. The matchup percentages should reflect the results of a typical best 2-out-of-3 set. That said, the DK/D3 Matchup is at least 97:3.

 

[phi1ny3]

It seems to me that the numbers if anything also incorporate chances of one character having exp. vs. the other. It's crazy and I don't know how to elaborate it, but I think for now the assertion gets across from what I said.
It does help though for the sake of the MU chart thread to work more effectively.
I do agree that there are a lot of arguable 60:40s that aren't really 60:40. However, I've found that when you look at it from pure "tool comparison", then the numbers make more sense, as opposed to looking grossly at chances of winning.

 

[zeldspazz]

I still dont see why we dont simply use only words. Because if the ratio 40:60 means "wins 40 games out of 100" or "wins 40% of the time" imo that doesnt even make sense. What people should be saying is this match is disadvantaged, even, or advantaged, not how many times you should win.

Thats how I'd do it at least.

 

[Chuee]

D (Middle-Low Tier) Half way there.
Shiek 6.8
Ness 6.7
Lucas 6.6
Sonic 6.4
Bowser 6.3
Charizard 6.2
Pokemon Trainer 6.2 (as an average)
Zelda 6.0

E Tier (Low Tier) At the low part of the mountain.
Yoshi 5.8
Ike 5.6
Mario 5.4
Samus 5.2
Ivysaur 5.0

F Tier (Bottom Tier) On ground level.
Jigglypuff 4.9
Captain Falcon 4.8
Link 4.6
Ganondorf 4.4
Popo 4.0
Nana 4.0

D-F tiers should be used in low tier tounaments.

Mario and Ike need to be D tier
Zelda should be top of E
Lucas & Ness bottom of D

 

[Nanaki]

Tier List

Dude, wtf do your numbers signify?

You do know that the SBR tier lists have numbers because they're voting averages, right?

 

[Kewkky]

I saw Kirby in C tier.

I literally didn't see anything else, it's already beyond horrible. Either you're just going with what everyone's saying, you're not using him right, or a mix of both.


Seriously. What is it with people suddenly saying Kirby sucks? Good thing the next tier list is next summer, that's enough time for whatever Kirby main is worth his fame to start repping better (I want it to be Pound4 already). Kirby can do better than what people are saying... Look at Ankoku's tourney results for example. How can you argue with that?

 

[Tien2500]

S Tier (Super Tier) In the heavens.
Meta Knight 9.9
Snake 9.9

A Tier (Top Tier) On top of the mountain.
Wario 9.7
Falco 9.6
Diddy Kong 9.5
King Dedede 9.4
Marth 9.3
Pikachu 9.2
Ice Climbers 9.1
Mr. Game & Watch 9.0

B Tier (High Tier) Almost at the top of the mountain.
Olimar and Pikmin 8.7
Zero Suit Samus 8.5
Toon Link 8.3
Pit 8.2
ROB 8.1
Lucario 8.0

C Tier (Middle-High Tier) Half way there.
Kirby 7.9
Donkey Kong 7.7
Luigi 7.6
Squirtle 7.5
Fox 7.4
Wolf 7.2
Peach 7.1
Zelda/Shiek (Used as both) 7.0

D (Middle-Low Tier) Half way there.
Shiek 6.8
Ness 6.7
Lucas 6.6
Sonic 6.4
Bowser 6.3
Charizard 6.2
Pokemon Trainer 6.2 (as an average)
Zelda 6.0

E Tier (Low Tier) At the low part of the mountain.
Yoshi 5.8
Ike 5.6
Mario 5.4
Samus 5.2
Ivysaur 5.0

F Tier (Bottom Tier) On ground level.
Jigglypuff 4.9
Captain Falcon 4.8
Link 4.6
Ganondorf 4.4
Popo 4.0
Nana 4.0

D-F tiers should be used in low tier tounaments.

I don't know how you arrived at Pokemon Trainer's rating. It seems like you just averaged together the three rankings but that doesn't work. A good trainer is not playing one stock as Squirtle one stock as Ivy and one as Charizard. A good trainer will probably spend about 50% of a match as Squirtle, 35% as Charizard and 15% as Ivy. Of course that changes based on personal preference and the matchup but the point remains that you can't just average them out because they're not going to play the same amount of time.

At any rate trainer is better than Lucas and Ness and debatably better than Bowser and Sonic. I don't think Sheik, Bowser, and Trainer should be in low tier tourneys and Sonic is very debatable. Ike and maybe Mario are better than Yoshi and should be bumped up a Tier. Zelda should be bumped down a tier. Sheik should move up a tier. Kirby should probably switch places with Pit.

 

[phi1ny3]

Technically only Calibur's had Kirby in C tier, and that's because he put Snake/MK in their own tier (imo I still think Super Saiyan tier was too good to lose). That makes Kirby on most of the lists top of B-tier-ish, which is where I think he should be imo. He's still solid, but there's a lot of things currently that are going against him, like not having enough true **** MUs to balance having a good soft counter (ICs) or some other arguably just as yucky MUs (snake, campy MK). I can see him being higher than TL and ROB, but there's too much "viva la revolution" going on with top of B vs. bottom of A lol.

 

[Blatt Blvd]

lol, were the made up numbers really necessary haliburchamp?

i love random tier lists.

 

[Dark.Pch]

People underate Peach so much with these list you goes bring out. De que diablo man......

 

[Kewkky]

Technically only Calibur's had him there, and that' because he put Snake/MK in their own tier (imo I still think Super Saiyan tier was too good to lose). That makes Kirby on most of the lists top of B-tier-ish, which is where I think he should be imo. He's still solid, but there's a lot of things currently that are going against him, like not having enough true **** MUs to balance having a good soft counter (ICs) or some other arguably just as yucky MUs (snake, campy MK).

Snake is hard, but not BEYOND hard... MK is easier than Snake... IC's, haven't had the experience against good mainers so I can't say... So, so far I agree on ICs, and disagree on the other two being "yucky MUs".

Even if people deny it, I'm still believing he gives Falco a hell of a fight, no matter how campy Falco gets.

 

[phi1ny3]

People underate Peach so much with these list you goes bring out. De que diablo man......

I say she has at least the tools for B-tier.

 

[Dark.Pch]

She is a B tier character. I don't know why people keep thinking she is C

 

[Vex Kasrani]

She is a B tier character. I don't know why people keep thinking she is C

B or potentially A imo, but I believe shes ATLEAST B tier.

 

[Dark.Pch]

B or potentially A imo, but I believe shes ATLEAST B tier.

I would have to really look into this character more to see if she could be "A" tier material. I would have to play 2 times harder to see if she could make that spot. B tier, she got that hands down.

Peach really has one problem that people make such a big deal about and underate her so much cause of it. And that is that she is not a great killer. People hear or see that and it's "omg, she sucks, he is not tourny playable, etc." I think this character possibly has more stuff then anyone in this game, it terms of how she can be played and techs/ tricks.

To me that killing problem is what holds her from being high tier, nothing else.

"But I can just camp her, haa. To easy to beat her and I just win"

I hear this too. And this is also BS. But when I start back playing again in November, I'll try to beast as much as I can to get her into A tier. This is gonna be hard as hell. But can be done.

 

[zeldspazz]

Zelda should be top of E

Zelda should be bumped down a tier.

*Sigh* Its all I hear when we talk about Zelda. Down she goes......lol

 

[Tien2500]

*Sigh* Its all I hear when we talk about Zelda. Down she goes......lol

Well if you want to prove us wrong Zelda's going to have to get some placings.

 

[Nefarious B]

For DMG and whoever else was talking about ZSS's matchups, I disagree with our boards on quite a few matchups but as far as GaW goes I have to agree, it's 60-40 or higher.

Here's my (totally unproven and possibly uninformed) opinion of her top tier matchups:

1: MK: 40-60
2. Snake: 50-50
3. Wario: 45-55
4. Falco 35-65
5. Diddy 45-55
6. DDD 60-40
7. Marth 50-50
8. GaW 60-40
9: Pika 55-45
10. Olimar 45-55
11. ICs 55-45
12. ROB 70-30
13. Kirby 60-40
14. Lucario 50-50

 

[Tien2500]

For DMG and whoever else was talking about ZSS's matchups, I disagree with our boards on quite a few matchups but as far as GaW goes I have to agree, it's 60-40 or higher.

Here's my (totally unproven and possibly uninformed) opinion of her top tier matchups:

1: MK: 40-60
2. Snake: 50-50
3. Wario: 45-55
4. Falco 35-65
5. Diddy 45-55
6. DDD 60-40
7. Marth 50-50
8. GaW 60-40
9: Pika 55-45
10. Olimar 45-55
11. ICs 55-45
12. ROB 70-30
13. Kirby 60-40
14. Lucario 50-50

I'd say Diddy is closer to 60:40 unless we find some banana tricks. And I think Olimar is in our favor.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Dude, wtf do your numbers signify?

You do know that the SBR tier lists have numbers because they're voting averages, right?

I made the numbers for rankings not voting, if I think a character is just as good as the other character, I will give them the same rating, like MK and Snake, I gave them a 9.9 because I think they are both equally good.

I saw Kirby in C tier.

I literally didn't see anything else, it's already beyond horrible. Either you're just going with what everyone's saying, you're not using him right, or a mix of both.


Seriously. What is it with people suddenly saying Kirby sucks? Good thing the next tier list is next summer, that's enough time for whatever Kirby main is worth his fame to start repping better (I want it to be Pound4 already). Kirby can do better than what people are saying... Look at Ankoku's tourney results for example. How can you argue with that?

Well, I was thinking that Kirby is just as good as Lucario is, so I will bump Kirby to B tier and give him the same rating as Lucario, an 8.0. In my next tier list.

I don't know how you arrived at Pokemon Trainer's rating. It seems like you just averaged together the three rankings but that doesn't work. A good trainer is not playing one stock as Squirtle one stock as Ivy and one as Charizard. A good trainer will probably spend about 50% of a match as Squirtle, 35% as Charizard and 15% as Ivy. Of course that changes based on personal preference and the matchup but the point remains that you can't just average them out because they're not going to play the same amount of time.
With hacks involved, it is not an option to play the pokemon separately at tournaments with no forced switching and fatigue which is why I put the pokemon in different tiers, and rated PT overall as an average between the pokemon.

At any rate trainer is better than Lucas and Ness and debatably better than Bowser and Sonic. I don't think Sheik, Bowser, and Trainer should be in low tier tourneys and Sonic is very debatable. Ike and maybe Mario are better than Yoshi and should be bumped up a Tier. Zelda should be bumped down a tier. Sheik should move up a tier. Kirby should probably switch places with Pit.

If Bowser had no AT's, then yeah PT would be better, but Klaw hopping is useful and so is his grab release tricks, which makes Bowser better than PT trainer and Charizard. Lucas and Ness are very underated, and they have a poor fanbase, Sonic only does better in tournaments, just because Sonic is a popular character. And in melee, low and mid low tier characters were played in low tier tounrnaments, not just low tier. Everything else you mentioned is wrong.

lol, were the made up numbers really necessary haliburchamp?

i love random tier lists.

I made the numbers for rankings not voting, if I think a character is just as good as the other character, I will give them the same rating, like MK and Snake, I gave them a 9.9 because I think they are both equally good. And it's not a random tier list.

 

[Tien2500]

Ok... I think you missed my point. You can't just average how good the three Pokemon are and make that Trainer's rating because Trainer is not using all three Pokemon an equal amount of time. So the average would at the very least have to be weighted based on how much each Pokemon is being used.

There is nothing to show that Lucas has any more potential then he's shown. Ness has at least had some decent placings but Lucas has nothing really. Sonic at least has good placings to show that he can win some tournaments in the current metagame.

Bowser=/= Charizard plus claw hopping. I'm not sure what you're basing Bowser>PT on but matchups should be taken into account more than one AT. I'm not saying 100% PT>Bowser but you need to say more to convince me than that...

 

[shinyspoon42]

Ok... I think you missed my point. You can't just average how good the three Pokemon are and make that Trainer's rating because Trainer is not using all three Pokemon an equal amount of time. So the average would at the very least have to be weighted based on how much each Pokemon is being used.

There is nothing to show that Lucas has any more potential then he's shown. Ness has at least had some decent placings but Lucas has nothing really. Sonic at least has good placings to show that he can win some tournaments in the current metagame.

Bowser=/= Charizard plus claw hopping. I'm not sure what you're basing Bowser>PT on but matchups should be taken into account more than one AT. I'm not saying 100% PT>Bowser but you need to say more to convince me than that...

Bowser and charizard play very different, and any fool who thinks Bowser is a wingless charizard needs to get educated. Also people underestimate bowser, all these random tier lists have characters like Ike above him. Bowser is solid D tier, for sure, but he is better then everyone under him for sure.

fyi, good bowsers don't even klaw hop very often. It is a technique to stay in the air, but bowser is bad in the air and plays best on the ground.


Also, can people educate me as to why Samus is one of the worst in the game? I've never really looked into the character much.

 

[Tien2500]

Bowser and charizard play very different, and any fool who thinks Bowser is a wingless charizard needs to get educated. Also people underestimate bowser, all these random tier lists have characters like Ike above him.

fyi, good bowsers don't even klaw hop very often. It is a technique to stay in the air, but bowser is bad in the air and plays best on the ground.

Ummm was that directed at me? What I said was that Bowser=/= Charizard plus claw hopping. =/= means not equal as in not equal to... as in different...

And Samus is one of the worst in the game because she can't KO except with a dair spike and her projectile game isn't enough to compensate for that in most matchups.

 

[Palpi]

Samus is fun until you realize that it has been 4 min of you racking % / camping / being on the ledge waiting for someone to run into your d-tilt at 230% on your first stock

 

[CaliburChamp]

Samus KO strats...
Z-air sets up to a D-air spike quite nicely.
Z-air to full charged shot.
Missle to full charged shot.
B-air is probably Samus' easiest to land KO move.
Up-air autocanceled to D-tilt
Up-air autocanceled to F-smash.

Samus does suck, but she isn't any worse than Jiggypuff. And Sonic has a harder time KOing than Samus.

 

[Red Arremer]

And Samus is one of the worst in the game because she can't KO except with a dair spike and her projectile game isn't enough to compensate for that in most matchups.

Sweetie, you really gotta do some more research on Samus.

@Shinyspoon:
Samus does indeed lack KO power, though. She has a few KO moves that are very hard to set up. Furthermore, she has a pretty telegraphed moveset, that also is very slow or has some awkward hitboxes or poor range. Add in low priority and you have Samus.

She would be bottom tier if she didn't have ZAir and her amazing offstage game thanks to it. I though do think that people are hopping on a sort of "Samus sucks" bandwagon, just like with Zelda.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I can see how Samus can be decent if your opponent knows nothing about the match up... but... eh.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

For DMG and whoever else was talking about ZSS's matchups, I disagree with our boards on quite a few matchups but as far as GaW goes I have to agree, it's 60-40 or higher.

Here's my (totally unproven and possibly uninformed) opinion of her top tier matchups:

1: MK: 40-60
2. Snake: 50-50
3. Wario: 45-55
4. Falco 35-65
5. Diddy 45-55
6. DDD 60-40
7. Marth 50-50
8. GaW 60-40
9: Pika 55-45
10. Olimar 45-55
11. ICs 55-45
12. ROB 70-30
13. Kirby 60-40
14. Lucario 50-50

MK is closer, like 45:55. Snake I don't know, there's so much debate. Falco is probably 30:70. Marth is probably 45:55 his favor, not even. I stand by 65:35 for GaW and Kirby and Olimar is ZSS' favor.

Also Lucario is probably slightly Lucario's favor.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

I would think she would have a good long distance planking game.

Opponent on the other side of the stage? Let go of ledge -> DJ -> Projectile -> Grab ledge.

Opponent up close? SH Zair/Fair -> Ledge grab.

I would imagine it would be hard for a lot of characters to beat.

 

[Red Arremer]

I can see how Samus can be decent if your opponent knows nothing about the match up... but... eh.

Don't get me wrong, she does suck, and really badly, too.

But she's by no means in the same boat as Ganondorf or Link, lol.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Don't get me wrong, she does suck, and really badly, too.

But she's by no means in the same boat as Ganondorf or Link, lol.

I agree. I mean, my first few times playing Palpi's Samus, I had some troubles. I still won them, but it was a pain in the ***. Then I got more used to her camping/kill setups, and... she sucks.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This is why the ratio system needs to be changed. because having this kind of generality in the mindset when one is trying to discern concrete numbers is rediculous.

If this is the case that the ratio system does need to be changed so that a 60:40 really means just that, a match where one character wins 60% of the time and the other wins 40%. If thats NOT what these numbers mean and we are going on a subjective reasoning that, "60:40 means its kinda hard and one character has a definite advantage and should be kinda, a little bit hard for the other character to win" than the entire concept of using numbers to determine matchups is completely meaningless, because the numbers dont actually translate, into anything...

If a DK can really only hope to win 1-2 games out of 100 with a competant DDD, than the ratio should reflect that, and be shown as a 99-1/98-2 matchup

I wish we could do that, but the problem is match-ups get too bad too fast for it to be useful.

Simple example, at equal skill level and at the top of the metagame, Marth can only hope to reliably win 5 out of 95 games, or something similar (again, at the top of the metagame, it's a lot better with aggressive MKs like M2K most of the time, but no marth is really his equal anyway).


60-40s are more like 80%.

When we hit 70-30 as we call it, it's over 99%.


A DK would not win like 1 or 2 games out of a hundred, more like 1 game out of 100,000,000,000,000.


So, there's the basic problem, it just gets too bad too fast, but slight advantages in skill also tip that very quickly, so if you're just a bit better, 60-40 becomes winnable in close to 50% range.



That's why it's simply more useful to make it a difficulty rating BUT it should be mathematically defined in terms of what that difficulty rating means.